Federal Judge Denies Motion to Block Assault Weapons Ban in Illinois

A federal judge in Chicago has denied a motion seeking a temporary injunction and interim injunction against Illinois’ assault weapons ban and Naperville’s similar ordinance.

U.S. District Judge Virginia Kendall ruled Friday that Illinois and Naperville’s bans on the sale of assault weapons were “constitutionally justified.”

Attorneys for the National Gun Rights Association and Naperville gun store owner Robert Bevis have sought a temporary restraining order and an injunction as part of a lawsuit to end the ban.

They say that the new state gun law and similar Naperville ordinance will not meet the burden under the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case decided last summer: New York Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. Impossible,” he argued.

In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that the government must demonstrate that gun control is “consistent with the country’s historical tradition of gun control.”

“Because assault weapons are particularly dangerous weapons, and high-capacity magazines are attachments to particularly dangerous weapons, their regulation is consistent with history and tradition,” Kendall wrote in the ruling.

“By prohibiting commercial sales, Naperville and Illinois legally exercised their powers to control possession, transfer, sale and manufacture,” the judge wrote.

The lawsuit is one of many challenges facing the Illinois ban, but Kendall’s decision appears to be the first by a federal judge to consider whether the ban is consistent with Bruen’s.

Under Bruen, weapon restrictions must be limited to dangerous and unusual weapons not in common use.

Weapons prohibited by Illinois law are “unquestionably” in common use, lawyers for the National Gun Rights Association argued in a gist.

“Weapons commonly used for legitimate purposes are by definition not uncommon,” the lawyer wrote. cannot receive a blanket ban.”

Kendall wrote that given the history of firearms control, governments can regulate very dangerous weapons, such as assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.

“The language of the Second Amendment is limited to certain weapons only, and history and tradition show that particularly ‘dangerous’ weapons are not protected,” Kendall wrote.

Offensive weapons are also not commonly used for self-defense, and gun owners have plenty of other firearms to use for defense.

The judge said the request to block the ban did not represent irreparable harm to plaintiffs.

“Beavis has provided no evidence that he will lose significant sales and can still sell most other types of guns. Weapons are only 5% of firearms,” writes Kendall.

Kendall also decided that states and cities had a more compelling argument than Bevis and the National Gun Rights Association to protect the public interest.

“On the one hand, they are allegedly stripped of their constitutional rights. Again, the economic burden and loss of access to effective firearms is minimal,” Kendall said. “Meanwhile, Illinois and Naperville are pushing for laws that protect public safety by keeping particularly dangerous weapons out of circulation.”

The plaintiffs amended their lawsuit after Gov. J.B. Pritzker signed a statewide assault weapons ban into law last year after the city of Naperville passed a local ban, adding the state as a defendant.

A state law, currently pending in parts of Illinois due to another lawsuit, prohibits the sale of assault weapons and limits the purchase of magazines of 10 for long guns and 15 for handguns. increase.

It also outlawed a rapid-fire device called a “switch” because it turned a firearm into a fully automatic weapon. People who already own banned guns are allowed to keep them, but must register with the Illinois State Police by January 1.

Earlier this month, a Southern Illinois state court judge Stopped enforcing an assault weapons ban on 865 gun owners and one downtown gun store. A person who has filed a lawsuit challenging the law.